Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

Minoosh said:
I haven't read this whole thread but I am 100 percent confident that Trump can't do what he says he intends to do. If so he could repeal the First Amendment, reinstate Prohibition, raise the voting age, etc. He's pandering to the uneducated as always.

And I have to weigh in on concentration camps for kids. The process is rational, it's the result that is absurd. These children have basically been taken into foster care. They are wards of the state due to their not being a biological parent or legal guardian to retain/resume that responsibility. The federal government is in loco parentis at that point. It needs to keep the kids safe. It's unfortunate that it means they must be locked up, but it does. It works the same way in public schools. Those children are absolutely not free to come and go as they please (until they are 16). I've worked in many schools the last few years and they are almost literally cages.

If family separation is the policy, and I don't think it has to be, then someone has to look after the kids. Anyone stepping up needs to be background-checked. In the past relatives were often available but I think the general climate of fear has changed that (maybe not everyone in the family has proper documentation).

Schools are institutions run on the same logistics as correctional facilities, for some of the same reasons. Those kids need to be fed, protected from bullies, monitored in the hallways etc. Often there is only one entrance/exit, at least during school hours. Things loosen up once school hours are over, because some of the legal obligations fall away.
Click to expand...

The difference with some of those is this is this would be a case of enforcing the Constitution as it is written. If he believes it to be so, it would violate his oath not to sign the order
 
Upchurch said:
I would have said the same thing about the US using torture or putting children in concentration camps too, before it happened.

Granted, death camps *are* an extreme, but so are these other things and we *do/did* have them. The point stands that Trump can do anything we don't prevent him from doing.
Click to expand...
The same is true of every person in power.

They can do what they're not prevented from doing.
 
Should be noted that the future ex speaker of the house said today that Trump cannot end birthright citizenship and that a Constitutional amendment would be required.
 
quadraginta said:
Carefully chosen words. :rolleyes:

The policy may have been ended by the courts (although there is room for disagreement as to how thorough that was), but the separations haven't been.

So, a toothless gesture by an impotent judiciary.
Click to expand...
The separations did occur prior to Trump, though not often. I'm not aware that they are occurring often now, though perhaps more often than under Obama.

I'm not a Trump defender, as I hope you realize.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Yeah, you can make the law anything you want, but can you give me a moral reason why someone born in the same hospital as I shouldn't have the same rights? Or alternatively, can you tell me what problem you're solving with your proposal?
Click to expand...

Are you advocates just now thinking about this question?
 
Am I right in stating that this thread is pretty much just 5 pages of getting Bob'd and then bickering?

This should have been over after Joe quoted himself and shrugged, complaining about...whatever it is he was complaining about. It's hard to tell.

This thread could be summed up in 1 sentence. Trump implies he can do something he can't, people get their panties twisted.

There, if someone jumped to this point in the thread I saved them some time.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You are asking a question and then wondering why you are just now thinking of that question?
Click to expand...

Huh? I originally asked JoeMorgue (or any other advocate for changing the current law) what moral right they are basing that on or what social problem they are trying to solve. Seeing no answers, I asked if those advocates had just now started thinking about it. Where did I lose you?
 
WilliamSeger said:
Huh? I originally asked JoeMorgue (or any other advocate for changing the current law) what moral right they are basing that on or what social problem they are trying to solve. Seeing no answers, I asked if those advocates had just now started thinking about it. Where did I lose you?
Click to expand...

It looked more like you were debating yourself.
 
14A :All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ......

Them legal beagles that wrote them Amendments did not add phrases because they were paid by the word. So what did they have in mind with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Sounds like you could be born here yet NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof ??? Is that illegals? If so, then woyuldn't an executive order to the ummm, Immigration & Naturalization Service suffice to call them "not citizens" and deport them?

And oh, do I get credit for pointing out a new definition of "Birther"? :D
 
casebro said:
14A :All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ......

Them legal beagles that wrote them Amendments did not add phrases because they were paid by the word. So what did they have in mind with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Sounds like you could be born here yet NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof ??? Is that illegals? If so, then woyuldn't an executive order to the ummm, Immigration & Naturalization Service suffice to call them "not citizens" and deport them?

And oh, do I get credit for pointing out a new definition of "Birther"? :D
Click to expand...

A lot of original meaning says that only applies to children of diplomats.

And illegals are absolutely subject to the jurisdiction. That is why they can get charged with crimes.
 
IANAL (natch)

My understanding is that the way that phrase has been interpreted is as to apply to, for instance, children born to foreign diplomats. They inherit the diplomatic status and protection of their parents, and are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore - not citizens.
 
casebro said:
14A :All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ......

Them legal beagles that wrote them Amendments did not add phrases because they were paid by the word. So what did they have in mind with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Sounds like you could be born here yet NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof ??? Is that illegals? If so, then woyuldn't an executive order to the ummm, Immigration & Naturalization Service suffice to call them "not citizens" and deport them?

And oh, do I get credit for pointing out a new definition of "Birther"? :D
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be illegal to deport them if they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?
 
casebro said:
14A :All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ......

Them legal beagles that wrote them Amendments did not add phrases because they were paid by the word. So what did they have in mind with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Sounds like you could be born here yet NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof ??? Is that illegals? If so, then woyuldn't an executive order to the ummm, Immigration & Naturalization Service suffice to call them "not citizens" and deport them?

And oh, do I get credit for pointing out a new definition of "Birther"? :D
Click to expand...

I already covered this further up in the thread. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the laws of. That is what jurisdiction is: when a particular government has the ability to enforce their laws against a particular person or anyone in a particular place. When the 14th Amendment was put together there were two groups of people that needed to be excluded because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or States: The children of diplomats, and Indians.

As someone responded earlier, the case of diplomats is clear. At birth they obtain the diplomatic immunity of their parents, and are thus not subject to the laws of the U.S. or the State they reside in. The case with Indians was clearer back then (since Native Americans are U.S. citizens now), but basically Indians were foreign nationals at that time. While Indian reservations are considered U.S. territory, the nations living on them and managing them are separate from the USA, and Federal and State jurisdiction is limited in them. Thus the children of Indians, at least those born on tribal land, which is technically U.S. territory, were excluded by jurisdiction.

Now ask yourself: if the child of two immigrants punches you in the face, and you call the police, is that person going to be arrested? Are they going to be charged with the crime of assault in State court? Yep. The children of illegal immigrants are completely "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
 
Last edited:
I was surprised to see actual arguements that there are legal opinions that this may be viable. From here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...order-court-14th-amendment-column/1818609002/

“Three ways to interpret those six words

The primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that freed slaves after the Civil War would have full rights of citizenship in every state. When the amendment was drafted, various senators indicated that they intended the amendment to have the more narrow meaning. One of the key drafters, Sen. Lyman Trumbull stated during the debates that the language confined citizenship to those “born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and excluded foreign citizens. Later, in a federal statute, one of the drafters Sen. John Bingham, said that the law embodied “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

Others have argued that the clause refers to people simply being subject to federal laws, not a matter of allegiance to that authority. “Jurisdiction” refers to falling under the authority of a legal system.

There is a middle position that is also possible: that the reference to “jurisdiction” left the decision of the meaning of citizenship up to Congress to decide as a policy question.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom